Hello,

Briefly about me: found TRP a year ago, was active, got doxed at work, fired, stopped browsing,now back and making up for my cowardice with contributions.

 

In looking at TRP, I believe I can be of service in providing different lenses of interpretation in regards to core issues in TRP. I will begin using philosophy, more precisely, the social contract. If short on time, read the italicized statements to gain the gist.

 

 

An Introduction

 

All relationships are at their base social contracts. *Simply put, they entail the transfer of abstract or concrete goods and services in exchange for a payment; they typically involve the willing alienation of some rights in exchange for a benefit. *Understanding this concept and applying it can allow for an interesting way of interpreting the world. The first contract that must be examined is that of citizenship to a state, and how it shapes movements like feminism and TRP. Then, I will briefly break down the Friend-zone/Pump & Dump using a similar framework.

 

 

 

Citizenship

 

Chief Negotiating Parties: The State & A Citizen

Minor Negotiating Parties: Parents/Guardians & Other Citizens

 

To enjoy classic public goods such as national defense, sanitation and general infrastructure, one must agree to be subject to the laws of that country as well as pay a fee to fund these public goods(tax). This is the basic clause underlying the social contract of citizenship. However, new, individualized social goods have now been added to the contract: social security, health care & education. In contrast to classic public goods, these are applied to an individual based on their perceived need, yet all citizens as parties to the contract must bear their cost. The contract is posed by the current incarnation of the government and accepted(citizenship) or declined(renouncing citizenship). Initial acceptance is done on behalf of the citizen by Parents/Guardians. However, upon independently accepting the contract, a citizen gains the ability to negotiate the terms of the contract with the state(voting).

For ethical and legal reasons, a contract should be amended when a majority of those with equity wish for a change; this is represented directly(referendums) or indirectly(elections). Therefore, as a citizen, in order to enact change, you must lobby your fellow citizens, to accumulate enough equity to demand a change. *A key distinction to be made is that *not every citizen has equal equity in the contract. *Individuals who generate substantial profit for the state, whether morally, financially or logistically have a higher equity in the state and enjoy benefits not expressly outlined in the contract, but naturally occur(emergent properties*).

Capitalism embraces differential equity; communism pushes for low-equity individuals to manage high-equity individuals resources; socialism pushes for the redistribution of equity to provide a general standard of living. This is accomplished by gathering groups of individuals together(movements/ideologies) in order to lobby the government to amend the contract.

Feminism seeks to amend the entire social contract of The State; it sought the redistribution of equity in the contract from what they identified as high-equity(men) individuals to low-equity(women) individuals. This was accomplished by providing services, goods and opportunities typically enjoyed by the perceived high-equity group: voting, owning property, hold office, equal pay, marriage rights & education. Men's Rights Activists(MRAs) focus on particular sub-contracts where they believe men have low-equity instead of the entire system. However, both do, to differing extents believe in gender constructionism, the belief that there are no intrinsic differences across groups of parties that justify differential treatment. Feminism applies this concept to the entire contract between the state and citizen, whereas MRA's apply it to situations based on individual judgement.

TRP & RPW are primarily concerned not with redistribution of equity in the contract, but moving from being a low-equity individual to a high-quality individual. TheRedPill focuses on a basic sub-contract, sexual strategy, and aims to provide individuals with the tools, reports and support necessary to become high-equity individuals in contracts regarding sex, which may result in a position of high-equity in all other sub-contracts and thus the basic social contract between citizen and state. This is grounded by a belief in gender essentialism, that there are intrinsic differences across groups that make differential treatment logical. A rejection of redistribution as well as a subscription to gender essentialism make TRP & RPW at their core, anti-feminist. However, it has even broader implications.

A belief in essentialism in tandem with a lack of belief in redistribution, disqualifies a large number of modern movements from legitimacy in the eyes of TRP. This is a driving factor behind the absolute horror that overcomes individuals when they visit. TRP & RPW posit that this is the world, positions of low and high equity will always exist, and in order to join the latter, serious work is required; you were not wronged, and you do not deserve it, you are in control of your own destiny. For most, this thought is so contrary to all the principles they have used to guide their life that to not hate TRP is to purposely engage in mental torture. For some, the pill is so bitter it is spit right back out. This is particularly relevant as feminism, as most socialist movements do, enters its communist stage, in which it attempts to control the resources of those who have been identified as high-equity without seeking to earn that equity. TRP thought is a natural enemy.

Social Contract theory allows for a more systematic break down of most of our common situations. I'll briefly examine Friend-zone/Pump & Dump through that lens, and then close.

 

 

 

Friend Zone/ Pump & Dump

 

Chief Negotiating Parties: Female Citizen & Male Citizen

 

This "friend zone" refers not to rejection, but to the manipulation of an implicit social contract understood by all parties involved. A man drafts a social contract with his offered services being affection, time spent, his status & resources and the requested payment being non-platonic interaction(sex & intimacy). He then presents this contract offer to the woman through verbal & non-verbal communication. For a rejection, at this point the woman voices her inability or unwillingness to enter into the social contract, and the man withdraws the offer, and with it, all offered services. However, what can occur is the woman will accept the terms of the contract, consistently deferring the payment of non-platonic interaction while conveying through verbal & non-verbal interactions that the requested payment(sex & intimacy) will be received. Following this, the woman provides friendship, attempting to amend the contract; at this point, most terminate the contract. Still, his offered services typically cannot be regained; she got them for free. Before this moment, the proposed amendment of the contract is often extended for as long as possible. This is the friend zone. The Pump & Dump is the reverse, with the woman offering sex & intimacy in exchange for affection, time spent, status & resources. She demonstrates that she wishes to enter into this contract, and in most cases, the man accepts the terms. However, after sleeping with her, he negates the contract, having gained the service he wanted; pumped & dumped.

 

 

 

Closing

When both of these contracts are presented together, with no defectors(sudden contract withdrawal), it results in a long term relationship. The desire to make this contract official, and therefore involve the state, is called marriage. The conditions of what marriage means are part of the overall social contract the citizen has with the state, and thus we return to vote lobbying. If an individual is allowed access to goods and services without providing any of their own, can you be surprised that the core social contract would be lobbied to make it so? (feminism) Can you be surprised afterwards when that amendment is taken advantage of? (divorce asset distribution) Would you blame a party in the business world for terminating a contract that allows them 50% of the company's assets in order to form a new social contract with a better company?(hypergamy) Would you be surprised if a party could punish another party for not accepting the terms of a contract proposed to them, being unhappy with the contract, or one party misrepresenting the goods they were going to provide and that party did so? (rape, abuse accusations)

These are not actions of irrationality. These are actions meant to alter the social contract to maximize equity with low contribution.Through social contract theory, an individual can better understand human interaction, and through that, improve. I hope this was beneficial.